Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Advancing their quest for “common sense press control,” the Senate Judiciary Committee voted yesterday to define who the government will consider to be an “Authorized Journalist,” meaning if the measure becomes law, they will also be able to declare who is not.

Defining "covered journalists" as those who are “an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information,” the bill would also “extend to student journalists,” the report continues, meaning it will also codify who is an “Authorized Student.”

That this particular triumvirate sees itself as the arbiters of not just government declaring who merits elite “more equal than others” recognition, but as vested with legitimate Constitutional powers to make such a determination backed by force of law in the first damn place, is hardly surprising. After all, the Second Amendment isn’t safe around them either, so why would people think other freedoms would be?

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” Declaration of Independence)

In other words, governments are instituted for one purpose … to secure rights. They are merely the vessel that contains and protects these God-given rights. Government is not the purpose unto itself. It is merely the carrying case for liberty, and when that carrying case becomes the object of our intent, rather than precious cargo of God-given rights being the object of our focus, we are in mired vexation. When our founders erected a new government to shelter their Creator endowed rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” the object was not the institution, it was freedom. They did not create an idol for us to worship and call it government. Government was the shell that contained the egg. The shell has little value but to protect the contents.

Jefferson could not have made it any clearer. America’s founders desired a land in which men might live in liberty. By declaring independence from the government of England and instituting a new government on this continent, they did not erect that government for the purpose of having a government, but rather, it was built as a bulwark to house those principles that secured our freedoms. They created a mechanism designed to carry and shelter our precious freedom and liberty … government was an armored car to protect that, which they considered to be, irreplaceably precious …liberty. Even the independence they sought was not the object … the object was liberty. Even the formation of the constitution in 1787, while a brilliant work, was not the object … the object was freedom.

Now, look further at these words:

“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

This is that time which is now upon us. It is time to abolish what has sprung up in the place of our government and institute new government, and laying again the foundation and purpose of our government … namely, the protection of liberty and freedom. That is the hard work that lies ahead … instituting a new government from within the hydra which has grown up in Washington D.C., state capitals around the country, the counties and cities from the hustings, to the monolithic metropolises coast to coast. We must build again, not a government that does for us what we don’t want to dirty our hands doing, but a government which meets its singular goal as described by the Founders … housing for liberty. Government is not the goal … the goal is liberty. And it will be only, when we rebuild the bulwark of freedom, a government placed solidly on the foundation of constitutional precept, limited in size, scope and reach, to the 17 powers granted it to protect our freedom and liberty, that we will once again breathe free as a people.

I haven't read the text of the bill, which always puts one at risk for getting out on the thin end of the limb when commenting, but . . . BUT

If the protections of publication of one's thoughts and opinions free from prior restraint is to be limited to those who hold an (official or unofficial) press license to speak/publish, would The American Crisis or Common Sense (author Thomas Paine) have seen the light of day under such a law? Would the Federalist Papers have been published, or would their authors have been incarcerated of fined into non-existence?

A general disrespect has developed among those who hold themselves to be our betters for the Second Amendment. Think not that the Second Amendment is the only aged, musty artifact of a bygone era that our betters would eliminate or severely restrict. The First Amendment can be a real pain to those who rule rather than govern. The Fourth Amendment has already been severely compromised, the Fifth Amendment weakened, and Ninth and Tenth Amendments largely ignored.

And all this has been with little resistance, and with a lot of cheerleading by those who are too stupid or too shortsighted to realize they are being used as "useful idiots" by those who will rule mercilessly over them also when central power is solidified.

We were given a constitutional "Republic, Madame, if you can keep it." - (Benjamin Franklin) We are not only not keeping it, we are throwing it away with both hands. But we are no longer a moral and religious people, and even our founders proclaimed our Constitution was unfit for the governance of any other people. It seems John Adams was right in that also.

Is the American national anthem politically incorrect? From the 4th verse:Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

Mohammad

The truth can be offensive to some but it must be said

"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at 2544), when it held: "The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Federal courts have consistently followed this. Said Virginia federal district judge Claude Hilton: "The First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar or profane."

Even some advocacy of violence is protected by the 1st Amendment. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that speech advocating violent illegal actions to bring about social change is protected by the First Amendment "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

The double standard: Atheists can put up signs and billboards saying that Christianity is wrong and that is hunky dory. But if a Christian says that homosexuality is wrong, that is attacked as "hate speech"

One for the militant atheists to consider: "...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -- Thomas Jefferson

"I think no subject should be off-limits, and I regard the laws in many Continental countries criminalizing Holocaust denial as philosophically repugnant and practically useless – in that they confirm to Jew-haters that the Jews control everything (otherwise why aren’t we allowed to talk about it?)" -- Mark Steyn

Voltaire's most famous saying was actually a summary of Voltaire's thinking by one of his biographers rather than something Voltaire said himself. Nonetheless it is a wholly admirable sentiment: "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I am of a similar mind.

The traditional advice about derogatory speech: "Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you". Apparently people today are not as emotionally robust as their ancestors were.

Why conservatives should not respond to Leftist abuse: "Never wrestle with a pig, because you'll both just get dirty, and the pig likes it.”

The KKK were members of the DEMOCRATIC party. Google "Klanbake" if you doubt it

A phobia is an irrational fear, so the terms "Islamophobic" and "homophobic" embody a claim that the people so described are mentally ill. There is no evidence for either claim. Both terms are simply abuse masquerading as diagnoses and suggest that the person using them is engaged in propaganda rather than in any form of rational or objective discourse.

Leftists often pretend that any mention of race is "racist" -- unless they mention it, of course. But leaving such irrational propaganda aside, which statements really are racist? Can statements of fact about race be "racist"? Such statements are simply either true or false. The most sweeping possible definition of racism is that a racist statement is a statement that includes a negative value judgment of some race. Absent that, a statement is not racist, for all that Leftists might howl that it is. Facts cannot be racist so nor is the simple statement of them racist. Here is a statement that cannot therefore be racist by itself, though it could be false: "Blacks are on average much less intelligent than whites". If it is false and someone utters it, he could simply be mistaken or misinformed.

Categorization is a basic human survival skill so racism as the Left define it (i.e. any awareness of race) is in fact neither right nor wrong. It is simply human

Whatever your definition of racism, however, a statement that simply mentions race is not thereby racist -- though one would think otherwise from American Presidential election campaigns. Is a statement that mentions dogs, "doggist" or a statement that mentions cats, "cattist"?

If any mention of racial differences is racist then all Leftists are racist too -- as "affirmative action" is an explicit reference to racial differences

Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." -- Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862

Gimlet-eyed Leftist haters sometimes pounce on the word "white" as racist. Will the time come when we have to refer to the White House as the "Full spectrum of light" House?

The spirit of liberty is "the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." and "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." -- Judge Learned Hand

Mostly, a gaffe is just truth slipping out

Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)

First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean

It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.

It seems a pity that the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus is now little known. Remember, wrote the Stoic thinker, "that foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not to let your impressions carry you away."

"Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with less danger, scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all manner of tractates, and hearing all manner of reason?" -- English poet John Milton (1608-1674) in Areopagitica

Leftists can try to get you fired from your job over something that you said and that's not an attack on free speech. But if you just criticize something that they say, then that IS an attack on free speech

The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have been speaking of much that goes on today when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

I despair of the ADL. Jews have enough problems already and yet in the ADL one has a prominent Jewish organization that does its best to make itself offensive to Christians. Their Leftism is more important to them than the welfare of Jewry -- which is the exact opposite of what they ostensibly stand for! Jewish cleverness seems to vanish when politics are involved. Fortunately, Christians are true to their saviour and have loving hearts. Jewish dissatisfaction with the myopia of the ADL is outlined here. Note that Foxy was too grand to reply to it.

There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)

NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here